What Does “Pay-To-Play” Mean, and Are Such Programs by Default Bad?

Another misunderstood term in college admissions is "Pay-to-Play." If a parent looks up this term online, they might come away believing that any summer program charging tuition, such as BU RISE or SIP, counts as "pay-to-play" simply because of the high fees. Even worse, they may write off genuine "Pay-to-Play" programs as inherently negative, assuming they aren't worth their child's time. This mentality misunderstands both the college admissions process and the role summer programs actually play within it.

So what exactly is a "Pay-to-Play" program? These are programs that aim to be non-selective by actively scaling the number of mentors and principal investigators (PIs) to match student demand. A telltale sign of a "Pay-to-Play" program is heavy promotion of mentors from prestigious universities like Harvard, Princeton, and MIT. By recruiting from a wide range of universities and companies, these programs can offer nearly any willing high school student, provided they can afford the fee, a research opportunity or internship.

Programs like BU RISE and SIP, despite charging tuition, don't have this same flexibility. They recruit professors only from their host institution, so their supply of research positions is capped while demand stays high. That's what makes them selective. In short, "Pay-to-Play" programs are less selective because they can expand supply to meet demand, while programs like BU RISE stay selective because they're tied to one institution's limited pool of professors.

Does this mean "Pay-to-Play" programs aren't worth your time? Not at all. Comparing a "Pay-to-Play" program to MIT's RSI and lamenting that admissions officers don't view it the same way misses the point. Listing a "Pay-to-Play" program on a college application may not be impressive by itself, but if the work produces a published paper in a reputable journal, it can meaningfully strengthen an application.

The real value of "Pay-to-Play" programs is what they make possible next. They give students the research experience needed to get into more selective, non-"Pay-to-Play" programs later on, and that later admission is what actually strengthens a college application. Unlike colleges, most summer research programs aren't optimizing for diversity, equity, and inclusion; they're simply looking for high school students who can contribute meaningfully to a professor's research group.

This creates a kind of ladder. A student with little to no research experience can use a "Pay-to-Play" program freshman year to build real skills, which makes them competitive for more selective programs sophomore year, confident enough to cold-email professors for long-term opportunities, and eventually ready for ultra-selective programs like MIT's RSI, the Simons Program, or the Anson L. Clark Scholars Program. For many students, this is the fastest way to start a research career in high school and eventually land a spot in a program whose name carries real weight with admissions.

Just as there's a college admissions process, there's a parallel admissions process for high school summer research. "Pay-to-Play" programs are often the entry point, letting freshmen start building a track record early, positioning them for the most selective programs by junior year, and ultimately improving their odds at their dream college.

Parents should still do their due diligence when judging whether a specific "Pay-to-Play" program is worth it. Red flags include programs that don't let students switch mentors free of charge, that guarantee publication, or that aren't transparent about who runs them.

If you want to cut through the noise regarding what works and doesn't work for college admissions, click the button below to schedule a talk with an admissions expert who will answer all of your questions regarding the dos and don'ts of the college admissions process.